Loading...
PCMIN 05 14 1996 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING · A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City.Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA May 14, 1996 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A.. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. B. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued - General Plan Amendment 96-052 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-050; a request of the City for certification of the Environmental Assessment, approval of the General Plan Land Use Element Text Amendment, and update of Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and a recommendation to repeal various Municipal Code Chapters. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff pointed out that a fax had been received from the Building Industry Association addressing five items they still have a concern with. As the fax was received late, staff has not responded to the concerns. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff; there being none, the public hearing was opened. PC5-14 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 3. Mr. Robert Kuhl, Monroe Street, stated he was still concerned about the Equestrian Overlay. It was his opinion that the City was attempting to legislate a situation that is not evident. There has been no problem with the zoning except for this one neighborhood dispute and it is taking a toll on the entire equestrian area. This dispute needs to be handled in the court, not by the City. He would recommend that staff reconsider some of their changes. 4. Mr. Sonny Kanlian, 50-400 Jefferson, La Quinta, stated he agreed with Mr. Kuhl that his area should have a special equestrian zoning rather than involving the entire community. His requests were not meant to affect all the equestrian facilities. No accommodations have been made to address his concerns. Why couldn't a more flexible zoning be placed next to his approved residential tract? The requirement for an inner fence, which he believes is the most crucial, is still not addressed. Is the City prepared to share the increased exposure to injury and liability on his fence? Now they are facing the issue of lights and loud speakers and as it is not addressed in the Equestrian Overlay District, staff states that it cannot be denied. Again not enough time or effort has been spent to address all the issues. The lights should have netting on the west and east facing properties to maintain the Dark Sky Ordinance. Weekends should be declared free zones with no equestrian activities so they can enjoy their lifestyle. If this is allowed all seven days there is no relief for him. Loud speakers have not been addressed. This could have been controlled through the conditional use permit process that would require this equestrian facility to be conditioned. 5. Mr. Marvin Roos, Building Industry Association, apologized for responding so late to the changes that had been made since the last meeting and thanked the Commission for their patience. He felt there were only a couple of areas still to discuss. 1.) The areas of major concem have to do with the increased setback requirements. SideYard setbacks on small lots, cul-de-sacs in particular, would be difficult to construct, especially for two story units. They would suggest leaving the existing 5 yard setback for lots less than 10,000 square feet. There is ambiguity of how an irregular lot is de£med on the rear setback. The restrictions on gate widths, limits the property owner on how he can access his property. A thirty-six inch gate does not allow certain types of equipment to pass through. 2.) They are also concerned with the requirement for additional parking. A four bedroom home has a 5-1/2 parking requirement. In reference to Table 9-11 for guest parking, they would like to know what supports the differences in the number of spaces required. The number stated seems too high. They would suggest eliminating the requirement for additional parking for four bedrooms and up; guest parking be limited to 2.5 spaces per unit; support the reduction in PC5-14 2 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 parking for shopping centers and hotels; and entitlements should be allowed to continue. Cost factors regarding the parking requirements do add to the development costs at a time when the industry is trying to find a combination that will be financially viable. The General Plan changes regarding development intensity make the General Plan weak when the General Plan references the Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan is the foundation for the Zoning Ordinance and not the reference. The General Plan should be first and have strength and be able to stand up in a court of law. Currently there is Director apProval of compatibility when a tract is submitted and now it is Commission approval. This should remain with the Director. 6. Mrs. Louise Tyler, 44-215 Villeta Drive, stated that even though her husband was a Planning Commission, she was speaking on her own behalf. Her concern was regarding the parking of recreational vehicle. Currently in the northern portion of La Quinta there are 46 Code violations of the current City codes of various natures. In their neighborhood they have a total of 34 assorted Rvs, utility trailers, pop-up trailers, boats, camping trailers in fi.om yards, driveways, and at the curbs. There are 34 assorted trailers parked at homes in various locations. The new Code requirements allow an RV to be parked in a driveway for 72 hours. How will staffbe able to enforce this new code? The allowing of habitation in trailers for seven days for guest parking is causing their neighborhood to turn into a trailer park which is unattractive. Zoning Code revisions should be addressed with enough foresight so that revisions are not needed in the futm'e. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels' closed the public hearing. 8. Commissioner Tyler stated he had a number of comments and criticisms of the new Code, especially regarding the RV requirements, and if they were allowed to remain he could not vote in favor in it. 9. Commissioner Newkirk stated he had no comment. 10. Commissioner Gardner stated that from the comments that had been made, people are of the opinion that the Ordinance as it is being written is set in concrete. The local level of government is flexible, and even though a lot of time has been spent revising this document, it is a document that can work and be changed if necessary. 11. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed with Commissioner Gardner. PC5-14 3 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 12. Commissioner Barrows stated she had no comment. 13. Commissioner Anderson stated there had been some very good points raised. He thanked staff for the amount of work that had gone into the document. He would, however, like to address, in detail, some of the questions that had been raised. 14. Chairman Abels reiterated that this document is not set in concrete, but it is a document that can be used to allow the City to move forward. 15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Newkirk to adopt Resolution 96-012 recommending certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 96-318 prepared for General Plan Amendment 96-052 and Zoning Ordinance 96-050. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 16. Staff asked to make a recommendation that the setbacks on Table 9-6-Non Residential Development Standards Section 9.90.040, for the minimum perimeter landscaping setbacks, be changed to be consistent with the General Plan Policy 3-4.1.11. 17. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Newkirk to adopt Resolution 96-013 recommending to the City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment. 18. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern about allowing the seven day habitable RV parking and emphasized that seven days could be a burden on the neighborhood. He would like to amend the motion to state that, Article 9.60.130.C.2. "that the use of recreational vehicles for habitation be temporary only and shall not exceed three days .... ". City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that his issue and the staff' s issue of setbacks, would apply to the resolution adopting the Zoning Ordinance and not the General Plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. PC5-14 4 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Newkirk to adopt Resolution 96-014 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-050 relating to the Zoning Code, replacing existing Title 9 and deletion of Chapters 5.36, 5.37, 5.64, 5.68, and a portion of Chapter 5.72 and Section 6.08.105 per Exhibits, with modifications to Table 9-6 of the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with Policy 3-4.1.11 of the Land Use Element and Article 9.60.130.C.2 be amended to read "...that the use of recreational vehicles for habitation be temporary only and shall not exceed three days...". 20. Commissioner Tyler stated he had major concerns regarding Section · 9.60.130-Recreational Vehicle Parking. It is difficult to interpret and regressive by allowing things that previously were banned by City Codes, such as parking in the front yards. Section 9.100.210-Noise Control in Residential Areas has been made the same as industrial zones and not def'med in laymen terms so the individual resident can interpret the document. Finally, Section 9.170-Communication Towers. This section needs to be reviewed and updated by a competent authority to afford adequate protection from and compliance with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. . However, as the newest member to the Planning Commission, he did not want to be an obstruction or unduly delay the adoption of the proposed changes, however, he could not vote for revisions for key areas that he is not comfortable with and therefore he would vote no. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Tentative Tract 26768; a request of Dietrich and Ingrid Wemer for approval of a one year time extension for the subdivision of 20 acres into 21 single family and amenity lots on the west side of Monroe Street, one quarter mile north of Airport Boulevard. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Tyler questioned Conditions #41, a word has been left out does this mean the existing power lines along Monroe Street would stay in place. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell explained that the eXisting high voltage lines would remain unless they can be undergrounded by Imperial Irrigation District. In addition, Condition #46, requires a 22 foot maximum building height, where another tract to be reviewed tonight requires a 20-foot PC5-14 5 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 building height. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell explained that these conditions were made in the late 1980's and at that time, tracts did have different height requirements based on the surrounding heights of existing houses. Commissioner Tyler stated that Condition #47 appears to have a word left out and should read "all homes with sloped roofs shall have clay or concrete tiles". Condition #50 is in contradiction to itself. Landscaping is required to be installed and then in the last sentence a security deposit is allowed. Associate Planner Greg Trousell explained it was to allow the property owner the flexibility. Commissioner Anderson suggested combining the two sentences and make it obvious that it is either/or. 3. Commissioner Anderson questioned Conditions #55 and #48. The existing tract calls for 21 lots consisting of minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet. Currently the existing tract has lots below the minimum required, therefore is it conceivable that they can get 20 lots no less than 20,000 square feet. Is it staff's intention is to have the map reworked to incorporate 20 lots instead of 21 by increasing the size of the lots. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated this would allow them flexibility, but they cannot exceed that number. Discussion followed regarding the arrangement of the lots and amenities that could be allowed. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated that this was being reviewed by the City Council for removal of the Rural Overlay. If this is approved, are they back to 21 lots. Staff stated this was tree but it would depend on what the Council determines. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public heating. Mr. Dietrich Wemer, applicant, stated they had no objections to the conditions. 6. Commissioner Anderson stated that one of the Conditions of Approval required that there would be no more than 20 lots. If the extension is approved, the project could have no more than 20 lots. Mr. Wemer stated he had no objection.. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public heating. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Barrows to adopt Resolution 96-015 recommending to the City Council approval of a one year time extension for Tentative Tract 26768 (First Extension) to allow a 2 l-lot single family residential land sales subdivision on approximately 20 acres, subject to the amended conditions. PC5-14 6 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 8. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked for clarification on Condition //50 that it was the Commission's intention to combine the condition for readability purposes only. The Commission concurred. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. D. Tentative Tract 27899 (Extension # 1); a request of Century-Crowell Communities for approval of a one year time extension for a subdivision of 30.3 gross acres into 111 single family lots. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Tyler asked staffto identify the location of the retention basin. Staff explained that the drainage would have to be provided whether or not it was on site. Commissioner Anderson asked if the drainage to the basin was to be surface drainage. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the drainage is via the streets until it collects at a catch basin near the cross street adjacent to the retention basin. Staff went on to explain the flow of the drainage. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing. Mr. Brian Esgate, Esgate Engineering representing the applicant, stated they had no objection to the conditions as recommended by staff. 5. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was the ability to create enough fall in the street to create surface drainage. Mr. Esgate stated that all three tracts were designed incrementally and each additional tract was designed to have the drainage flow to the one large area. The streets were designed to adequately handle the nm-off for a 100-year storm, Discussion followed regarding the construction of the drainage system. 6. Commissioner Tyler questioned the location of Victoria Drive. It appears that there is no room for this street without nmning through the houses. Mr. Esgate explained that the street lines up with INCO's main entry. PC5-14 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 7. There being no further discussion, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Butler to adopt Resolution 96-016 recommending to the City Council approval of a first one year time extension for Tentative Tract 27899 to allow a 111-lot single family residential land sales subdivision on approximately 30+ acres, subject to conditions. ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN': None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Sign Application 96-341; a request of Mr. Gerald Bogan for approval of a master sign program for the newly constructed Bogan Villas Commercial building. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. _ 2. Commissioner Newkirk asked staff to identify the location of the signs on the building. 3. Commissioner Anderson asked if this was to be a flat sign with no relief. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated it was his understanding they were to be flat and painted. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked what the size of the signs for the pedestrian arcade along Calle Estado were anticipated to be. Staff explained they would be less than half the size of the other signs and would be hung by chains. Commissioner Tyler asked about the directory signs being located in the rear instead of the signs on the second floor. Staff stated there was a provision in the Sign Code for directory signs for two story buildings. Discussion during the study session indicated the possibility of having directory signs instead of signs on the second story. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mrs. Lucia Moran, leasing agent for Bogan Villas, stated that the original sign approved for Bogan Villas had been changed from a single sign identification building to individual tenant signage. She further stated the signs were originally designed to go on the stucco portion of the south elevation, but staff changed the location to the wood beam along the pedestrian arcade. Their current tenant, La Quinta Village Antiques, did not want a single large sign, but rather three signs identifying the store and what they sell. The additional four foot sign is to be PC5-14 8 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 used for the retail stores downstairs. The exhibit shows the sign program to be flush on the white stucco wall with a black border. If the signs are to be placed on the wood beams, they will not be seen, they are designed for the white stucco. She believes the Library building next door has signs on the upstairs units. As to the exact placement of the signs, they have no objection, but the upstairs offices need to be seen from the street. The owner of the building does not want the upstairs signs lowered to the pedestrian walkway. He is willing to remove his Bogan Villa sign in order to allow the tenants to identify their businesses. If they are allowed to only have a one foot high sign with two rows, the letters will not be large enough to be seen from the street. 6. Commissioner Anderson clarified that staff's recommendation is not for the materials, but the manner in which they are hung. 7. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the owner not wanting to identify the building which would make it easier to identify and locate a business. Mrs. Moran stated that most people will not even see the front of the building. It was her belief that most patrons would be entering from Desert Club and would enter to the north of the building as there were no stairwells to the upstairs on Calle Estado. 8. Commissioner Newkirk asked what the address would be for the tenants on the second floor. Mrs. Moran stated the numbers for the downstairs would be Suites 101-104 and the upstairs Suites would be 201-208. The addresses would be hand painted on 4"X 4" tiles that would be placed next to the entrance of each door. Commissioner Newkirk asked if the addresses for the second floor would have a Calle Estado address. Mrs. Moran stated they would. Discussion followed regarding the addresses and how patrons would gain access to the building. 9. Commissioner Anderson asked how many tenant parking spaces would be allowed. Mrs. Moran replied that the number of parking spaces was determined by square footage. Commissioner Anderson asked how many tenants could ultimately be allowed in this building. Mrs. Moran stated that if the building were broken down to 250 square foot offices, they could have 16 businesses. However, this is not what the clientele is looking for. Commissioner Anderson asked how many parking spaces existed. Mrs. Moran stated she believed there were 27. Commissioner Anderson stated the Commission should be considering what the ultimate number of tenants could be. They need to determine what the total amount of allowable signage could be. Discussion followed regarding different sign combinations that could be applicable. PC5-14 9 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 10. Commissioner Tyler asked Mrs. Moran if the Planning Commission required the signs to be placed on the wood beam, could the color scheme of the signs could be changed to allow hanging them on the wood beam. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated that if they chose to change the color, staff could approve minor changes. Mrs. Moran stated that if the sign is to be on the wood, one foot in height for the sign would not be adequate. If the Commission is going to require the signage on the beam, which is 24-inches, they would request the entire 24-inches for signage. 11. Chairman Abels asked how much deviation from the Sign Ordinance they were requesting. Mrs. Moran stated that as she interpreted the Ordinance, they would not exceed the square footage allowed. 12. Commissioner Butler asked if the signs were to be illuminated. Mrs. Moran stated they would not be illuminated. She further stated the staff report did not allow for any type of sign except the name of the business. For example, La Quinta Antiques is the name of the business, but they sell antiques and collectibles. 13. Commissioner Anderson stated he thought the signs were determined by the size of the store frontage. Ifa tenant has leased three tenant spaces they could have three signs. Staff stated the Ordinance only allows one actual sign for each business unless they apply for and receive a sign adjustment. 14. Commissioner Anderson stated he was very opposed to this sign program in the Village. It would be a travesty to "lick and stick" these signs on th~ buildings He agreed with staff, that no signage should be allowed on the second floor on the south elevation. The stores that have access on the south need their signage on the south. He would not be opposed to placing the ground floor tenants on the wood header on the south elevation. This would lets the building stand and not clutter the facade. Most patrons looking for the building will travel down Calle Estado and look for the building identification sign. There should be a directory sign on the stair towers on the north elevation where it is appropriate, and small individual tenant signs at each tenant door applied to the wall. The Commission needs to respect what is wanted in the Village. Signage that is applied to the south elevation should be on the wood header. Keep the clutter to the minimum. 15. Commissioner Newkirk stated he agreed with Commissioner Anderson. PC5-14 10 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 16. Commissioner Gardner stated he also agreed. The building creates an image and they would be diminishing the quality of the building by adding signs all over the place. He was opposed to the signs as propoSed and Was not opposed to the recommendations of staff. 17. Commissioner Tyler stated he too was concemed about the location and size of the addresses to be placed on the building. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated originally it was to be on the signs. He also thought that if the signs were to be placed on the wood header the Commission might negotiate on the size between 18 and 24 inches. 18. Commissioner Barrows asked about the size of the sign. Commissioner Newkirk stated that he would not be opposed to a larger size. Commissioner Anderson stated he too would agree with 16 or 18 inches. Discussion followed regarding the size of the sign. 19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 96-019, to approve -- Sign Application 96-341, subject to staff's recommendations and findings and conditions with an amendment to Condition #3C allowing the business identification signs to be 18 inches in height and not to exceed 8 feet in overall length. Commissioner Butler asked if additional signs would be allowed by a tenant leasing multiple spaces. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if the Commission wanted to allow additional signs, they would need to amend the motion at this time. Staff suggested a condition be added stating that if a tenant leases more than three units, it is the option of the tenant to have one additional sign 18-inches by 8 feet. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated that the finding would be that the Commission required the signs to be placed on the beam and the beam is limited in width to where the sign could go therefore by allowing the additional sign it would qualify for a sign adjustment. Commissioner Anderson stated he was concerned about setting a precedent. If a tenant leases additional space there should be an allowance for ancillary signs, but as he is unsure how it could be handled, they shouldn't act quickly. Staff suggested the project be continued to the next meeting. Commissioner Gardner suggested amending the motion to state that if a tenant leases additional units, he would be allowed an additional sign or signs, but the total signage could not exceed 12 square feet. Commissioner Barrows asked what _ the size of the sign would be. Commissioner Gardner stated it would be 18 feet X 4 feet. Commissioner Anderson stated it appeared that the Planning PC5-14 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 Commission was trying to approve a sign program that had been submitted and changed so dramatically during the course of the meeting from what had been submitted. He was prepared to make a motion to approve a sign program that is entirely the opposite of what was submitted. The motion before the Planning Commission however, is to approve a sign program that he is opposed to. Chairman Abels suggested that due to the confusion, the best option would be to withdraw the motion. Commissioner Barrows withdrew her motion. Commissioner Gardner stated that as the maker of the second on the motion he was very reluctant to withdraw his second, but would do so in the interest of harmony. Unanimously approved. 19. Mr. Gerald Bogan, owner of the building, addressed the Commission regarding comments contained in the staff report. He stated he did not want to have a building identification on the building as it was gaudy and didn't impress him. Under applicant request, it appears that staff is using the La Quinta Executive Office building signage as an example of how the Village signage should be. There are a variety of signs throughout the Village area and he was concerned about the harmony of these signs as compared to what is being proposed for his building. He has no problem reducing the sign l~om the 30-inch height to 24-inches and placing them on the beam. He did not agree that one tenant who is leasing more than one space should be allowed to have additional signs. If that tenant moves out and the one unit again becomes three, he would need a sign for each. He was therefore requesting 'one sign over each space whether a tenant takes one or three spaces. Staff's recommendations should be based on the requirements of the Code, not what staff wants. The owner should have some say as to what is allowed on his building. He was concerned that second story signs will not be allowed on the south elevation. The only way to find the business is to drive down the alley to see who is occupying the second floors. Calle Estado is the main street and signs should be allowed on the Second story to identify who is occupying the space. 20. Chairman Abels asked if Mr. Bogan had spoken with staff regarding their recommendations. Mr. Bogan stated he had not received the staff report until two days earlier. He was willing to work out these problems, but he was tired of someone else nmning his building. Staff was not citing Code sections to justify their recommendation, but stating what they wanted. 21. Commissioner Butler asked if the owner was asking for signage on the south and north sides. Mr. Bogan stated yes, a small sign above the walkway to identify the suites upstairs. The downstairs did not need signage on the north as they will be identified by their physical number. The second story only needs signage on the south elevation. PC5-14 12 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 22. Commissioner Tyler stated it was unfortunate that Mr. Bogan had missed the first part of the meeting as most of his comments had been raised and discussed earlier. Commissioner Tyler stated Mr. Bogan no longer wanted the building identification sign, there currently is no address on the building to identify it, and he had a problem with the rationale that a sign is needed to state what businesses are located within the building. Most businesses are conducted by referral. Mr. Bogan stated that referrals could be a major part of a businesses success, but he did not feel it was fair to the tenant to have to depend on all his business coming from referrals. The Bogan Villa sign was gaudy in his opinion, so he dropped it, but he may bring it back if it does not detract from the tenant signage. 23. Commissioner Anderson stated he agreed with Mr. Bogan's opinion of the other signs in the Village. Of the examples presented by Mr. Bogan, there was no example of what the Commission wanted in the Village. However, he is opposed to the proposal because it also is not a good image for the Village. He is opposed to the sign clutter on the building, and disagrees that the success of a business is due to the signage. Staff has tried to reach a compromise between the sign program submitted and something that would be acceptable to what the Commission's views are for the Village. The building owner should have the right to do what the Code requires, but then there would be no need for the Planning Commission. The Commission is here to approve a sign program' and lend their expertise to improve the process. Mr. Bogan stated that if he was asking for more signage than what was allowed, then the Planning Commission should intervene. He was not, however, asking for more square footage than what is allowed by the Code, but disagreeing with the location of where staff is recommending the signs be placed. He had a problem with the size recommended by staff. He prefers 24-inches for the height of the signs on Calle Estado, each suite having the option of having a sign, and the upstairs businesses having a sign on Calle Estado to identify their business. Staff should not make the determination as to where the sign is located. Commissioner Anderson stated that staff has the option to bring all aspects of the proposed project to the Planning Commission for their approval. Mr. Bogan stated it should not be the decision of the Planning Commission to determine the location of the sign. He is trying to make the sign program fit within the Sign Code and be harmonious with the Village. He is trying to stay within the Code and other businesses are not being required to comply with the Code. Commissioner Anderson stated that the part Mr. Bogan is not understanding is that the Planning Commission does have a say regarding the entire sign program process. 24. Chairman Abels suggested this item be continued. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Commission has to consider the total number of tenants that PC5-14 13 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 will be allowed.. Mr. Bogan asked that the Planning Commission not continue the application, but vote yes or no. He would like to take it on to City Council. 25. Chairman Abels stated that due to the amount of added information given at this meeting the Planning Commission needs to reconsider the information. 26. Commissioner Anderson stated there is a provision in the current sign regulations for temporary signage to be installed until a sign program is approved. Mr. Bogan stated he had one sign manufacturer and he wanted all signs for the building to be the same. 27. Commissioner Barrows asked staff to clarify Condition #3.D. which states each tenant would have one business identification sign. Staff stated that as the Sign Code reads, one identification sign is allowed per business. 28. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Gardner to continue Sign Application 96-341 to May 28, 1996 to allow the Planning Commission time to review the proposed changes to the sign program. Unanimously approved B. Sign Application 96-344; a request of the La Quinta Car Wash for approval of three signs for the La Quinta Car Wash requiring three modifications to the One Eleven La Quinta Center sign program. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. James Jamigan, applicant, stated he wanted to give La Quinta the best car wash he could. The building is so large that 24-inch high letters for the signs, as recommended by staff, would be lost. The Car Wash sign is what is important and if the total amount of square footage is what is important, then he would remove the "La Quinta" wording and ask for the 30" letters and 50 square feet. On the south elevation he offered the Art in Public Places the option of placing a mural on the 16 X 30-foot frontage. He was not asking for anything that is not already allowed in the Center. Mr. Jamigan proceeded to give examples of existing signs in the Center. 3. Commissioner Barrows asked if the applicant intended to remove the wording "La Quinta" from all elevations. Mr. Jarnigan stated he would like PC5-14 14 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 to have them all the same. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not believe anyone would mistake this building for anything except a car wash if the signs were not giant in size. Mr. Jamigan stated 'his previous experience has proven they would. Discussion followed regarding the signs. 5. Commissioner Anderson stated he liked the "La Quinta" being a part of the sign, however he is not prepared to go beyond the allowed 50 square feet. Thirty inch letters are not necessary. He would consider dropping the "La Quinta" and just have the "Carwash" sign. No problem with the lettering of "La Quinta". He would rather have the "La Quinta" on the sign and reduce the size of the sign. The "exit only" sign should be located in front of the driveway. Mr. Jamigan stated there was a long planter to prevent any entrance at this location. 6. Commissioner Barrows stated she also liked the "La Quinta" on the signage and maybe on the north elevation it may be a possibility to keep it. -- 7. Commissioner Butler stated that since the "La Quinta" was not illuminated, he had no objection to the sign as submitted by the applicant. Since it was not illuminated it would not detract. 8. Commissioner Gardner stated he went along with staff's recommendation. 9. Commissioner Newkirk stated he agreed with Commissioner Butler. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated he also would like to see the "La Quinta" retained and he had no objection to the applicant's request. 11. Chairman Abels stated he also had no objection to the applicant's request. However, he would like to see the signage at the Center controlled. 12. There being no further discUssion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 96-020 to approve Sign Application 96-344, as submitted. The motion carded on a 5-2 vote with Commissioners Anderson and Gardner voting no. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR PC5-14 15 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 1996 A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of April 23, 1996. There being no corrections to the Minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Barrows to approve the Minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commissioner Tyler reported on the City Council meetings of April 30, 1996 and May 7, 1996. B. Department update - no report VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Anderson to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on May 28, 1996. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:59 P.M. Unanimously approved. PC5-14 16